get_all_us_quotes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds useful behavioral context: '内置并发控制' (built-in concurrency control) and the size/scale warning. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could further disclose return format or batching behavior, but the caution and concurrency note add value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: two sentences that state the core function, filter support, concurrency, and a caution. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every clause contributes meaning. The '【重要】' marker adds emphasis without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that returns a large dataset (8000+ stocks), the description covers the key points: real-time quotes, market filter, concurrency, and a volume warning. There is no output schema, but '实时行情' (real-time quotes) gives a reasonable sense of the return content. However, details like return structure, pagination, or potential limits are absent, so it's not fully complete for such a heavyweight tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; each parameter has a clear description including defaults (e.g., '每批请求的股票数量，默认 300' and '并发请求数，默认 5'). The description's mention of '按市场筛选' (filter by market) and '内置并发控制' (built-in concurrency control) only echoes schema information, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取全市场美股实时行情' (Get real-time quotes for the entire US stock market), with specific details like '8000+ 只股票' (8000+ stocks) and market filtering options. This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_us_quotes (single-stock quotes) and get_all_hk_quotes (Hong Kong market).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this when you need full-market US quotes, with optional market filtering. It also cautions '数据量较大，请谨慎使用' (large data volume, use with caution), which implies a heavy operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_us_quotes for single stocks or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.